RWC 2011 has already kicked off

I saw last week's Georgia/Spain game and the previous Romania/Russia match in full and some highlights involving Portugal, Georgia, Russia and Romania . None of these teams would beat any of the top eigbt but Georgia and Russia would both give Scotland and Italy a run for their money. Romania has slipped a bit and Spain is improving. There could be a surge in the second tier and begin to push the top nations.

Thanks Ian No doubt we all have our own experiences which influence the choices we make. I am quite comfortable with football as my game. There are no doubt nut cases involved in football but l guess the main difference with Rugby is they don't have designer clothes on when they act like fools. I understand the point concerning the little teams playing the big teams in the Rugby WC. However as a neutral, non Rugby person it is a turn off to see 100 point scores in the apparent elite tournament for your game. Certainly the comments of the people l know (not Rugby people) is that it is a bit of a farce. Good luck to Rugby but IMO it would be madness to increase the number of teams and therefore the number of blow outs.

Dave No problem, I enjoyed reading the article in spiked online. Seems to be a nerd sitting in the corner of the student bar sipping his half pint of beer, thinking green things having no interest in sport, rather sad really. Wouild have to be if he mentions Roy Hattersley, a doyen of the left, who for his sins supports Sheffield Wednesday; says alot about his taste in sport. I captained for a season the college football team, but the real socialable crowd were the rugby boys who pulled my leg remorsely. They were great fun and I turned out for them in other years mainly on the wing and really enjoyed playing. There was no nastiness to their frolics, unlike some of the football crowd who after a few drinks seemed tio think it was macho to pick fights with all and sundry. Turning to the RWC, Spiro is right some of the great experiences for the smaller nations is playing in the RWC. Some of the smaller European nations will improve and in 10 years time will provide a greater challenge, but they need the exposure to heighten interest in the game. Don't forget that 20 years ago Italy was a nonentity and look at the progress thay have made since joining the 6N's.

What rugby people tend to forget when some of them argue for a limited number of teams in the RWC tournament is the psychic pleasure the minnow teams get from playing some of the great rugby nations, and the way playing in a RWC tournament helps a minnow nation become a strong rugby nation (Argentina). Those Portuguese players who opposed the All Blacks in 2007 will remember the experience for the rest of their lives. A RWC tournament is the only chance they have of playing against sides like Australia, South Africa, England, France and NZ. IKt was noticeable in the 2007 RWC that there were fewer blow-outs than in past tournaments. And this trend will increase as the best players in the minnow countries play professional rugby in Europe, and the IRB programs to develop the game worldwide bear fruit.

Like Andrew B said there are a number of tournaments for the lower ranked teams: Six Nations B, Asian 5 Nations, Pacific Nations Cup, Churchill Cup. Why not have another tournament where the winners of regional tournaments play each other kind of like soccer's Confederations Cup. I'd imagine a tournament with likes Japan, Argentina, Fiji, USA and the European winners would be a great development tool for both playing strength and spectator interest.

The fact that Fiji came so close to beating eventual world champions South Africa and finalists England had a remarkably close game against the USA show that cutting numbers would be a mistake. Although we're not yet at the point of increasing the teams just yet. I'll make the point that often watching the smaller teams play each other can be just as entertaining as watching the bigger teams. Last two WCs there have been some great games between the second tier sides. I think that there definitely need to be more games for the second tier sides, Canada, USA, Japan, Pacific Islands (who should really be combined by now). It should be done in two ways, firstly have a few more games in the WC for teams that don't make it past the pool stages and secondly get them playing more. As if sending an 'emerging Wallabies' side to these places wouldn't be great for them and great for the development of our players!

Ian Noble Sorry about the three posts above but seemed to keep losing them not realising they were actually being posted. One post is sufficient for my points. :)

Ian Noble The Rugby WC is still a turn off for non Rugby folk when teams score 100 plus points or close to it. Need to fix that situation by splitting the tournament in to A (best 10-12 teams to play off) and B (the rest). It could be played concurrently and so rid the tournament of those farcical games. Ok for the amateurs getting a holiday and to play in front of a crowd but does nothing for the credibility of the tournament. Talking from a non Rugby person viewpoint here. Quality not quantity. BTW in reference to the comment about the growth of Rugby thought you may be interested in the following article about the comparison with football; http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/bigcount/index.html Football counts in the millions not thousands and would still appear to be the fastest growing sport. Also recall you made a comment about Rugby taking the high moral ground over football in the UK (cant find the post now). Thought you may be interested in an alternative viewpoint on that issue; http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3994/ Enjoy the article :)

Ian Noble The Rugby WC will not be taken seriously by non Rugby folk until it removes the situation where teams score 100 plus points and close to it. Sorry don't enjoy watching those games. Maybe good for the amateurs who get a holiday and play in front of a crowd. Quality not quantity and introduce a tournament where the best 10 or so play off against each other with the remainder playing each other in a B tournament concurrently. Also about the growth of Rugby you may be interested in this comparison with football; http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/bigcount/index.html Football count in the millions not thousands; players, officials and spectators. Seems to be the fastest growing sport around. BTW recall a comment you made about Rugby taking the moral high ground over football in the UK (cant find the blog now). Thought you may be interested in an alternative point of view about that subject; http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3994/ Interesting reading :)

Ian Noble The Rugby WC is a real turn off with such one sided games in the finals. Until they fix this situation then the non Rugby person will continue to see it as a farce. Great for the amateurs who get a free holiday and play in front of a crowd but does nothing for anyone wanting a contest. Do you really think 100 plus scores (or close to it) are great to watch? Quality not quantity and have a 2nd tournament. Why not the best 10-12 countries in a play off? BTW concerning playing numbers thought you may be interested in this link for football as a comparison; http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/bigcount/allplayers.html. Fasting growing sport (player numbers wise) in the world it would seem. Also recall your comment (on another blog but cant find it now) about Rugby taking the moral high ground over football in the UK. Thought you might like to read this article on that subject; http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3994/ Slightly different sentiments to yours :)

The RFU in their pitch for RWC2007 wanted to organise a two tournament RWC, but that was rejected. Personally I think it is a good idea but there are only a limited number of countries that have the resources to put on a dual tournament. The IRB web site is very informative, but I had to smile when I discovered that the Cayman Islands had a prop who is 59 years old. Sorry Dave I have to disagree outside OZ there are more people playing rugby than ever before and I stress playing not watching on TV or turning up to watch live. THe RWC and the professional game is really the tip of the iceberg. The RFU recently produced figures that more than 9000 adults had joined clubs and registered during the last season to play rugby.However the real boom is at junior level where there are more kids playing rugby, the problem is that many are lost to the game as they get older. The RFU through their return to rugby initiatives and community rugby structures are making real inroads in keepng these kids interested in the game.

Chris Beck No - more teams do not make for a better tournament, quality not quantity (dont try to compete with the football WC). My suggestion for expansion would be to wait until teams stop getting flogged by 50-100 points in the Rugby WC. Until then it is seen as a bit of a joke (non Rugby perspective). The suggestion of having the 10-12 top (there would only be that many decent teams anyway) teams play off and then a second tournament run concurrently for the rest seems reasonable. The group game stage as it stands, apart from the rare upset is not going to entice new people to the game.

Run two RWC competitions simultaneously - top 12 teams in the Cup tournament and next 12 in the Plate or Shield tournament. The latter could perhaps be midweek games played at smaller local grounds to spread the wealth a bit more during the RWC. Each tournament would have 4 pools of 3 randomly drawn teams. You play each other team twice and the top team in each pool goes through to the semi-finals. As only the top teams go through, each game will be critical. No third/fourth place playoff. The winning team will play 6 games, most of which will be life or death games against good opposition (no All Blacks flogging Los Lobos). Overall, 27 games in each tournament and 54 in total. This is comparable to the 48 games currently organised and quite doable if many are played in smaller local grounds.

Chris, You'd be surprised to learn of the number of IRB tournaments the minnow or emerging nations play in. Europe has the Six Nations, but there are two other tiers of European competition running also, for the likes of Germany, Spain, Russia, Romania, etc... USA and Canada have the Churchill Cup, where they get to play English, Irish & Scottish "A" teams. There is the Pacific Nations cup, for Samoa, Fiji, Tonga and Japan. And now their is a new tournament in Asia. The IRB, for all their numerous faults, have also put together some great programs to grow the game around the world and give some of the developing national sides meaningful and competative fixtures.

Spiro, I agree that the more teams in the RWC the better. How to do this is another story. It's a tough problem to solve, and I have no idea how to do it. Some significant percentage of the IRB hierarchy seems to think we need less teams, not more. In the offseason, one sees the European teams play each other, or tour to Argentina and/or the Super 14 nations. And vice versa. While the established powers are busy playing each other all the time, what are the minnows to do? There's only so many times the USA and Canada can play each other and get anything out of it. Sooner or later both teams are going to have to be given a crack at higher-ranked, or at least different, opposition. The Pacific island nations have a hard time coming up with consistent matches. And on and on . . . . A start might be for those teams that are knocked out of the RWC during pool play to stay on and play each other more or less continuously until the whole thing is over with. Why not - everyone's already in one place, just fire up a secondary tournament for the pool knockout victims.

The fact that the 2011 RWC tournament has to start its elimination matches in 2008 gives an indication that rugby is a world game (not as extensive as football) but with a significant prescence around the globe. This spread of the game makes it essential that the RWC tournament should involve at least 20 teams. As we saw in France in 2007 many of the minnow rugby powers have a great deal to offer to rugby followers and to the game. The 2015 tournament should be thinking of a 24-team event, I believe.